IMC as part of PPL?

[Pianorak]

I am doing my Night Qualifcation as part of the PPL. Wouldn’t it be nice if one could do the IMC as part of the PPL, especially in this well-nigh perfect weather for it (I am typing this in fogbound Brighton).
Any reason why this should/could not be considered by the powers that be at some stage? :confused:

[peterfoele]

Hi pianorak,

As far as I know this should not be a problem.
I am from Belgium, and did my IMC before my CPL.
The advantage is you could get how below VFR minima, but one peace of advice :do not push your luck, the aircraft a PPL flies is usualy underpowered and not equiped for icing conditions.

Good luck
Peter:ok:

[ToryBoy]

I didn't realise that an aircraft with 200hp was better in IMC than one with 140hp.

I think you're talking from your tea towel holder mate!






































:}

[Say again s l o w l y]

Peter is right, an a/c with 200hp is far better in any regime of flight than a similar one with 140.

Doing the IMC before the PPL would be a complete waste of time. The handling and operating skills required for safe flight in IMC are not usually present at an early stage in your flying training.

[NinjaBill]

From Lasors section D

E3.2 UK IMC FLYING TRAINING/
EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
When applying for an IMC Rating you must produce
logbook evidence of having met the following flying
requirements:-
and which
must include (b), (c), (d) & (e) below;
a. 25 hours total experience as pilot of
aeroplanes following PPL issue
b. 10 hours as Pilot in Command of aeroplanes to
include (c) below.
c. 5 hours as Pilot in Command of aeroplanes on
cross-country flights.
d. 15 hours as Pilot under Training in instrument
flying with an instructor in a dual controlled
aeroplane (during IMC course). Up to 2 hours
may be in a FNPT I or FNPT II..
e. 10 hours total flight time by sole reference to
instruments (during IMC course).
Instruction on the course may only be given by
instructors with ratings unrestricted with regard to
instrument flying instructions.


highlighting by myeslf.

As far as im aware, it may be difficult to complete "25 hours total experience as pilot of aeroplanes following PPL issue" prior to passing the ppl :O

Geoff

[DFC]

ToryBoy, I can safely say that is a waste of space! :D

---

The requirements for the IMC rating from LASORS state that a minimum of 25 hours post PPL flying are required.

The exact details can be found in LASORS but flying done before PPL issue doesn't count (exccept for the bit about the instrument training included in the PPL).

Far better to be fully proficient and confident in flying the aircraft in VMC before completing further training.

Personally, I would recomend that at least 50 hours post PPL be completed before starting the course.

Regards,

DFC

PS, If you are fogbound, you will not get flying with an IMC rating - the minimum visibility for departure and arrival is 1800m and in a single you need a minimum cloudbase of 600ft although 1000ft AGL is sensible in a single for the whole route to allow some chance of a fored landing.

There is also the fact that unless you are experienced and in current practice, the above minima should be even higher.

Not as easy as it first seems ;)

[Flyin'Dutch']

P,

As you rightly say flying in IMC is good fun and rewarding.

However it does not float everybody's boat and if more IMC flying was incorporated (even to the level of 'just' an IMC) those that don't like/want it would just see the cost of a PPL go up by 15 hours of dual.

May be incorporating the night training would not be a bad plan as it could be done at no extra cost and would confer some good practice and useful experience, especially as 6 months of the years the nights draw in early on these shores!

FD

[Pianorak]

Thanks for the replies. I am familiar with the present regulations re IMC. The current PPL syllabus provides for some “basic” instrument flying – and I was merely wondering whether this couldn’t perhaps be taken a step further. But talking from a position of ignorance and judging by the responses so far there is obviously more to IMC than I realize.
Ah well, you live and learn. :ok:

[Northern Highflyer]

I think there is enough to get to grips with already during the PPL without doing the IMC as well. The objective of the PPL is to be able to fly an aeroplane in VMC. I think you need to be totally comfortable with the aeroplane and do many of the things without having to think about them too much before trying to understand the instruments.

I have over 100 hours now and am part way through the IMC but there's no way I would have wanted to do it any sooner. I just wouldn't have had the spare brain capacity but maybe that's just me.

[IO540]

FD

One could make a bigger case for more instrument training before the night qualification, because at night it is awfully easy to get conditions where there is no horizon, never mind real IMC.

In fact the whole "PPL nav syllabus" is a bit of a farce for night flying, because unless flying over a load of towns there is no way to navigate at night. After "offician night" maybe but not in a real night over open country.

Will your instructor allow you to go on your QXC when there is no horizon? Of course not. But the school is more than happy to take a few hundred quid off you for the night qualification.

But the training industry will always resist any change which would make the PPL look more expensive on their price list. And it's a fair point; the PPL is a "license to learn".

But paradoxes like this are able to continue only because most PPLs give up shortly after they get it, and those that continue to fly don't usually go anywhere near their license privileges. Can you imagine what would happen if PPLs routinely flew around the south east UK on dead reckoning?

[FlyingForFun]

IO540,

I'm not sure I agree with your argument about the night qualification, although I can definitely see where you are coming from. In many parts of the country, including the whole of south-east England for example (where a majority of UK pilots fly), it is perfectly possible to fly at night without any instrument experience.

In other areas, though, your point is far more valid, and instructors (and schools) must have some kind of moral obligation to impress this upon pilots. The school in Phoenix where I did my hour-building wouldn't let any non-instrument rated pilot, regardless of experience, fly their aircraft to the north at night, for example.

FFF
--------------

[englishal]

If you are fogbound, you will not get flying with an IMC rating - the minimum visibility for departure and arrival is 1800m and in a single you need a minimum cloudbase of 600ft
oh yea?

http://www.digital-reality.co.uk/egph.JPG

:}

[Whirlybird]

It's not only that some pilots don't want to do an IMC. Lots of aircraft aren't suitable for it. PFA aircraft can't be flown in IMC (I think that's right), and loads of old and/or simple aircraft simply don't have the instrumentation. Once you have your PPL, you can decide what sort of flying you want to do, and for some people, a tailwheel conversion may be far more relevant than an IMC.

No, straight after a night rating you should not be flying over very dark countryside in poor vis, over the sea, or whatever. And straight after getting your PPL you probably shouldn't fly around the world, though it's legal! The fact that a licence or rating LEGALLY allows you to do something doesn't mean that it's sensible to do it. You might need more experience, or more qualifications, or both. Some schools make that clear...some don't allow channel crossings without an IMC, and having crossed the channel in marginal vis where the sky and sea looked pretty much the same, I can see why. If the school doesn't make it clear, pilots should know their own capabilities and limitations. It's called airmanship I believe. :ok:

[Mike Cross]

In many parts of the country, including the whole of south-east England for example (where a majority of UK pilots fly), it is perfectly possible to fly at night without any instrument experience.

I suggest a study of the circumstances surrounding JFK Jr's death.

As I recall the theory has it that he was flying from an area that had lights visible to a sparsely inhabited area with few or no lights visible. What he saw was the lights disappearing under the nose as he passed over them. With no more lights in view ahead the visual cues were similar to those he would have got had the aircraft pitched up. He lowered the nose to compensate and the aircraft descended rapidly into the sea.

Had he been in current instrument practice he might have deduced from his instruments that his brain was misinterpreting the visual clues and might not have died.

There are many reasons why you might lose sight of ground lights in the UK at night. Radiation Fog and low cloud are two that spring immediately to mind. There are also plenty of areas where in a slant visibility of say 5 miles you might get exactly the same effect happening to you even if there was no obscuring clound or fog. Flight over the New Forest or estuaries for example.

Mike

[Final 3 Greens]

I think the idea of incorporating IMC training into the PPL is pretty insane and a product of the experience/thinking of someone who has not yet flown enough hours to understand what IMC flying is really about.

You can't just take the hood off when the going gets tough and that includes all manner of turb, icing, possible vertigo etc..

I also agree that blasting off at night with only a NR is not very clever - you need to be competent (and current) on at least basic instrument flying IMHO.

[Pianorak]

". . . So, accurate instrument flying is essential for night flying."


It’s the above quotation from a Long Briefing (Gordon Sharp 1999/1) which set me wondering whether basic PPL instrument appreciation plus five hours night flying is sufficient to give one this essential skill. The answer appears to be a resounding “No”. I certainly share and have taken on board Whirlybird’s sensible comment.

There is just this niggling thought: Why was the Night Rating abolished in favour of this Night Qualification?

And since accurate instrument flying is essential shouldn't the IMC rating be a prerequisite for any night flying?

Sorry if these are stupid questions.

[Whirlybird]

Pianorak,

They are most definitely not stupid questions.

Interestingly, I've just been discussing this question of whether you need an IMC to fly at night with an airline pilot who used to run a flying school. He never used to let people do a night rating without doing an IMC first, for all the reasons mentioned. I disagree...partly because I want to do a night rating so I don't hae to worry about arrivng home a little after official night. I don't want to do an IMC, as the C150 I have a share in has only an inaccurate AI and a VOR, nothing more. But you see, I wouldn't fly at night apart from maybe getting back a bit late, and I know both my own limitations and that of my aircraft. And I think that's what flying training should be about: teaching people how to make sensible judgements about what they can and can't do, not making more and more rules. We are adults, not kids, and should be treted as such.

[IO540]

FFF

I would never suggest reducing the existing license privileges to match the existing quality of training – selfishly (I fly a well equipped plane and do some 150 hrs/year) I like things just the way they are. But would I let somebody I cared about to fly at night without being able to control and navigate and land (a just good enough ILS at least) on instruments? NO.

Yes there are adequate lights on the ground in the South East but it’s suprising how ambiguous they can be. A 1000-house village might have 100 street lights, a 100-house village might also have 100 street lights. Unless you actually know the area (which you may well do if you fly locally) dead reckoning is no good.

On another tack, one cannot really navigate PPL-style in the min PPL vis of 3km. There will be no horizon at all and few visual cues, unless you fly very low, probably below 1000ft AGL, and given that the reason for the poor vis could be rain or drizzle (ie poor visibility up front) that is risky even in those bits of the UK where there isn’t much sticking up. I did an hour with an instructor once at about 600ft, drizzle, low speed, in c**p vis like that, and it taught me to never try it. But it’s a PPL privilege.

Quite a few CFITs happen this way. The CAA safety seminars are really very very basic but they spend a lot of time going on about exactly this. But they say little about IMC – it’s mostly concentrated on low-time PPL activities and that's mostly the actual audience anyway.

But as I say, we should never complain because the trend of nearly all regulation is to get tighter, not looser.

One can’t incorporate the IMCR in the PPL, and one shouldn’t, not least because the PPL is used by many to fly types completely unsuitable for IMC. But the least the establishment could do is to treat it seriously, rather than putting out the constant bunk about it being a “get out of trouble rating”, or as the worse traditionalists like to say a “get into trouble rating”. Better still, come up with a PPL/IR like the FAA one :O

[Final 3 Greens]

because I want to do a night rating so I don't hae to worry about arrivng home a little after official night

That's exactly why I did my NR all those years ago and it has saved me on a couple of occasions.

It's amazing how many visual references are there for about 20 mins after official nightfall.

IO


BTW the FAA rating is an IR period .... its the same one that 747 pilots hold and the argument is why not have an accessible IR full stop - the present JARs do not seem to facilitate this, from the PPL POV.